It's been a long time since I corresponded with you, but when you were running the LDS Point/ Counterpoint Website and had done a site to look like Recovery From Mormonism, I was the disaffected RFM person who sent you a post about a spiritual experience that I had had. I told you how I went to the Board and mentioned it to them and they told me to go see a psychologist, while another guy who had a spiritual experience at a massage parlor was praised. So I got offended.
I actually went TBM again for quite a while. Being active and all that stuff. So I am happily being the good guy when Hinckley goes on Larry King and gets asked a basic gospel question. Do we become Gods, to which he responded...'I don't know that we teach that'
Needless to say I was quite pissed at Hinckley, and again started thinking through stuff again. I can't put my trust in a man who is so flighty that he doesn't stand up for the Church he is supposed to represent. I guess now I am a Christian, New Order Mormon. I still go. Even teach sometimes, but really think it's just another man made church like any other.
I have been reading your comments to Tal, and I see that you are no longer an active apologist. Though you are about the most honest and straight forward one I have come across.
Well probably be posting in the future.
A shoutout to Wade Englund
-
_Primus
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:55 am
A shoutout to Wade Englund
Following the Spirit so Far as it Corresponds With Reality
-
_wenglund
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4947
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm
Re: A shoutout to Wade Englund
Hi Primus,
Yes, I do remember you. It has been a while, and I am grateful for your kind words.
I trust that, aside from the spiritual rollercoaster that you seem to be on, that all else in your life is going well.
And, while I respect your present view of the Church and course in life, I do wonder if it may be wise from you to also seriously consider why your testimony keeps getting whip-lashed back and forth so often, and why it is that you would let your entire testimony of the restored gospel of Christ be controlled by a single, off-hand comment made by the prophet in a live interview?
If you would like some assistance in your introspecting on these things, please let me know. Either way, I look forward to your participation here.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Yes, I do remember you. It has been a while, and I am grateful for your kind words.
I trust that, aside from the spiritual rollercoaster that you seem to be on, that all else in your life is going well.
And, while I respect your present view of the Church and course in life, I do wonder if it may be wise from you to also seriously consider why your testimony keeps getting whip-lashed back and forth so often, and why it is that you would let your entire testimony of the restored gospel of Christ be controlled by a single, off-hand comment made by the prophet in a live interview?
If you would like some assistance in your introspecting on these things, please let me know. Either way, I look forward to your participation here.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
-
_moksha
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 22508
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm
Re: A shout-out to Wade Englund
Primus wrote: I actually went TBM again for quite a while. Being active and all that stuff. So I am happily being the good guy when Hinckley goes on Larry King and gets asked a basic gospel question. Do we become Gods, to which he responded...'I don't know that we teach that'
Needless to say I was quite pissed at Hinckley, and again started thinking through stuff again. I can't put my trust in a man who is so flighty that he doesn't stand up for the Church he is supposed to represent.
The message I have come away with, after some reflection, is that President Hinckley wanted to deemphasize and dissociate the Church from some previously controversial pronouncements. I can see the wisdom in his thinking that the Church would be better off without these doctrines.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
-
_Dr. Shades
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14117
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm
Re: A shout-out to Wade Englund
moksha wrote:The message I have come away with, after some reflection, is that President Hinckley wanted to deemphasize and dissociate the Church from some previously controversial pronouncements.
Isn't it a prophet's calling to be controversial? What would Abinadi say?
I can see the wisdom in his thinking that the Church would be better off without these doctrines.
Does God think the church would be better off without these doctrines?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley
--Louis Midgley
-
_Mercury
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5545
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:14 pm
Wade "The tool" Englund is, im sure, still an ignorant little man.
His empty exhortations in which he proclaims to be the savior of homosexuals, his twisted view of reality and his inability to determine what is truly real qualify him to have no respect. I find his actions to be comical, literally. I see his actions as a comedy and not the sick sad reality that they are.
His empty exhortations in which he proclaims to be the savior of homosexuals, his twisted view of reality and his inability to determine what is truly real qualify him to have no respect. I find his actions to be comical, literally. I see his actions as a comedy and not the sick sad reality that they are.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning
-
_Dr. Shades
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14117
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm
Runtu wrote:Actually, I think it's Shades wondering what happened to real prophets.
Exactly.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley
--Louis Midgley
-
_Tal Bachman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm
Moksha
Pres. Hinckley didn't tell the truth about a core Mormon theological precept. And he did not just do this once, but several times, in different interviews.
Not only that, but he has never to this day retracted these statements, and therefore, they still stand. They must stand, as any public statement does which has never been retracted, and especially one which was repeated by the person a few times.
That they stand means one of two things. One, Gordon B. Hinckley has now formally eviscerated the doctrine of eternal progression, by which he would also eviscerate the Mormon conception of the atonement, and indeed, the entire Plan of Salvation; or two, that Pres. Hinckley is "ashamed of the gospel of Christ", to the point where he would rather dissemble about it than admit to believing in it.
Either way, it is devastating. Have you read the actual quotes, Moksha? You should.
Pres. Hinckley didn't tell the truth about a core Mormon theological precept. And he did not just do this once, but several times, in different interviews.
Not only that, but he has never to this day retracted these statements, and therefore, they still stand. They must stand, as any public statement does which has never been retracted, and especially one which was repeated by the person a few times.
That they stand means one of two things. One, Gordon B. Hinckley has now formally eviscerated the doctrine of eternal progression, by which he would also eviscerate the Mormon conception of the atonement, and indeed, the entire Plan of Salvation; or two, that Pres. Hinckley is "ashamed of the gospel of Christ", to the point where he would rather dissemble about it than admit to believing in it.
Either way, it is devastating. Have you read the actual quotes, Moksha? You should.
-
_truth dancer
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4792
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm
I for one think President Hinckley was being honest (well, except for the "I don't know if we teach that" phrase).
I think he truly doesn't know if God was a man, and I think he doesn't see Jesus face to face, in the Holy of Holies as is rumored, evidenced by his clear statement that revelation comes to him as the still small voice.
He put an end to those rumors, or at least he tried. There are still those who don't believe him and claim Jesus speaks with him personally.
My guess... in another decade of so, the "God was a man/man can be God" idea will go the way of the Adam/God theory! (You know, just because it was in manuals, and taught by prophets doesn't mean it was doctrine... prophets just speak their opinion, etc.).
:-)
~dancer~
I think he truly doesn't know if God was a man, and I think he doesn't see Jesus face to face, in the Holy of Holies as is rumored, evidenced by his clear statement that revelation comes to him as the still small voice.
He put an end to those rumors, or at least he tried. There are still those who don't believe him and claim Jesus speaks with him personally.
My guess... in another decade of so, the "God was a man/man can be God" idea will go the way of the Adam/God theory! (You know, just because it was in manuals, and taught by prophets doesn't mean it was doctrine... prophets just speak their opinion, etc.).
:-)
~dancer~